Most
religions have a creepy fixation with the eradication of women's vaginas.
Some African cultures mutilate the clitoris and sew the vagina shut for
the sake of maintaining virginal "purity." Other zealots don't
like their saviors free-falling from the womb. In fact, ideological fanatics
have done everything in their power to explain away the vagina. God impregnated
Mary from his great big bachelor pad in the sky, fat little Buddha burst
from his mother's side, and we know little of Amna, Mohammad's mother,
let alone his actual birth, but we can assume the good prophet didn't
sully himself in vaginal juices. Like the rest of the prophets, Mohammad
probably materialized from the heavens. After all, a woman's body is a
dirty, sinful thing, which is why women are taught from an early age to
be ashamed of their bodies and to keep them covered always.

The belief in a divine creator aside, no rational person
can seriously argue that feminism and religiosity can coexist. If you
claim to be a religious person, you are not a feminist, nor if you believe
men and women are inherently equals can you claim to believe in the fundamental
beliefs of any religion. As far as I know, there is no religion on Earth
that presents men and women as exact equals.

The most popular version of Christianity claims women
are inherently subservient to men, since Eve came from Adam's rib. Meanwhile,
Mohammad married at least 11 times during his life, and his favorite wife,
Ayesha Bibi, was six-years-old when he married her. Sexy.

Here are some jewels from the Quran, the sacred text
of Islam:

II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate).
So go to your tilth as ye will...

I don't know about you, but if some dude walked up to
me at a bar and said, "Hey, baby. Mind if I plow your field?"
that man will receive my fist in his eye socket.

IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath
made the one of them to excel the other ... As for those from whom ye
fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge
them.

Short and simple: Men are superior to women. Women are
to be controlled, whether through violence or fear.

IV/15: (to women) If any one of your women is guilty
of lewdness ... confine them until death claims them.

IV/16: (for men) If two men among you commit indecency
(sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them
be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Homophobia aside, we see Allah, much like God, is all
sunshine and puppy kisses, forgiving and loving, until you're a woman
and you sin. Then, you're a whore in need of punishment.

In fairness to Mohammad, the God of the Christian bible
is no better than the typical baby's daddy you see on an episode of COPS.
Picture the big, white dude in the sky who orated this stirring tale:

Exodus 21:7-10 shows us that it is perfectly cool to
sell your daughter into slavery and allow her master to rape her. Also
in Exodus (22:16-17), if a man sleeps with a virgin (with or without her
consent,) he must marry her. However, if her father refuses to allow her
to wed, the man must then pay the father a dowry of virgins. How does
the recently deflowered virgin feel about being treated like a piece of
property? Well, funnily enough, we don't know. The Bible doesn't seem
concerned about her feelings.

Leviticus chapter 12 reminds us that women are unclean.
After giving birth to a boy, a woman is considered unclean for seven days.
However, if she has given birth to a girl, she is unclean for 33 days.
Regardless, the concept that a woman is somehow unclean after giving birth
is ludicrous. Of course, all religions fear the vagina, so it makes sense
that the scribes (along with all men) went into a complete tizzy after
childbirth, which very much relies upon the vagina.

Leviticus 19:20-22 teaches us that a man can rape his
female slaves and be forgiven, though the slave must be punished. Likewise,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reminds us that a man can rape a virgin, though he
must marry her, and also pay her father 50 shekels.

The Bible is a weird, scary place. In case you needed
further proof of that, along comes 1 Samuel 18:25-27 where Saul sells
his daughter to David. Instead of wanting to be paid money for his daughter,
Saul asks for ... are you ready? Saul asks for the foreskins of 100 Philistine
men.

.... WHAT? There's a happy ending, though. David gives
200 foreskins, a profit of 100 foreskins for Saul to squirrel away for
the winter. HUZZAH!

Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, leave no room for
interpretation when it comes to the role of women: "By a girl, by
a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently,
even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father,
in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must
never be independent". (Laws of Manu, V, 147-8).

Women are subservient to men and inherently inferior,
period.

What about Eastern religions?

Even Buddhism has been used to repress people (especially
women), such as under Hirohito's rule and currently in Burma. The armies
that began the horrible civil wars in Sri Lanka during the '50s and '60s
were comprised of Buddhists.

The Theravadan Buddhists claim a woman could never become
a Buddha. A popular belief in Buddhist countries is that negative karma
results in a man being reborn as a woman. Again, the female gender's state
is seen as a punishment, one filled with shame. Buddhism teaches that
institutions like marriage must be regulated by society though social,
political, and legal processes. This does not mean Buddhism is a progressive
religion. Rather, it's sort of like passing the buck. We don't want to
say women are equal to men, so we'll just let you figure it out. If you
decide they're equal, fine. If you decide she's the social equivalent
of a cow, and you can sell her for a dowry, that's cool too. I'll just
be over here, under my Bodhi tree.

Jainism is frequently referenced as the one truly peaceful
religion. They even cover their mouths whilst walking outside so they
cannot accidentally inhale a defenseless bug. Surely they, the Jains,
are enlightened in matters of gender. Think again. Jainism does not teach
that women can gain ultimate spiritual liberation, though a woman could
strive to become a man in her next life so she could then reach enlightenment.

What happens when so-called feminists create alliances
with religion?

You get police-sponsored Iranian fashion shows with women
dressed in different colored Hijab. Viva La Revolucion! What better way
to freely express creativity, passion, and art than in the free world
of fashion?

The liberated, passionate world of art, music, and fashion
cannot coexist with a regime that maintains these guidelines for women's
dress:

Conditions of Islamic Dress Code

1. Clothing must cover the entire body, only the hands
and face may remain visible (According to some Hiqh Schools).

2. The material must not be so thin that one can see
through it.

3. The clothing must hang loose so that the shape / form
of the body is not apparent.

4. The female clothing must not resemble the man's clothing.

5. The design of the clothing must not resemble the clothing
of the non-believing women.

6. The design must not consist of bold designs which
attract attention.

7. Clothing should not be worn for the sole purpose of
gaining reputation or increasing one's status in society.

Sounds chic, doesn't it? But hey, Allah never said he
wanted fashion shows. He said: "Say to the believing women that they
should lower their gaze and guard their modesty ; that they should not
display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear
thereof. " [Quran : 24.31]

Now get into your burka, and shut up. It's sad and embarrassing
when feminists try to rationalize their religiosity, say with Iranian
fashion shows. It's not tolerance. It's hypocrisy, illogical and downright
silly. It's a bit like watching a black person try to explain why they
vote Republican. Essentially, there is no way to reconcile the rational
hope of all genders peacefully coexisting with irrational dogmas. Modern
feminists desperately attempt to reshape their religions into something
that looks vaguely modern and tolerant, but at their cores, all religions
are sexist and repressive.

If the only proof of a religion's dictated guidelines
to morality are their religious texts, then we must believe that the Bible,
Quran, and Buddhist sutras, vinaya, and abhidharma all represent the core
beliefs of their religious sources. If we are to believe they are not
truly reflective of their religious roots, then why did God dictate incorrect
information to his scribes? If the errors of the texts are man's folly,
why has God not corrected them or made his true beliefs known? God is,
after all, the supposed creator of the cosmos. Surely, he could have given
us a Bible 2.0 by now. Perhaps a Bible XP?

No, we must assume these texts are truly reflective of
their religion's ideologies. With that assumption firmly cemented, we
see that there is no room in religion for feminism, the doctrine advocating
the equality of rights, social and political, with those of men. For feminism
to work, it must exist outside of the constraining margins of religion.
It must operate outside of the assumption that women are inferior to men,
which is a foundational belief of the major theologies. Or, feminists
must attempt to rationalize their religious ideologies to reconcile them
with their desire for social equality, which is an impossible order. You
end up changing the definition of your religion by rejecting their sacred
texts or you change the definition of feminism so it says: I want to be
equal always, except when it comes to your religion that says I am inferior,
and I accept that.

Either you are a feminist and you reject religion, or
you are a worshiper and you reject the concept that the genders are equal.